However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

The Defendant is a person who runs a store store in the name of “E” in Article 37 of the first floor of the D Building in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and is employed by F, G, H, and I.

On July 21, 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with F, G, H, and I, kept the combined total of 491 points of counterfeit goods (the estimated product amounting to 826,150,000 won) as indicated in the attached list of crimes, such as 135 points on a forged bag, on which the trademark holder's registration of goods (registration number No. 0059471) is identical with or similar to the trademark in the Korean Intellectual Property Office, without a legitimate title to use the trademark.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect by the prosecution against the defendant or F;

1. The original trademark register and investigation report (verification of forged goods as a result of an appraisal report and confirmation of the amount of damage caused by the presumption of authentic goods);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

1. Relevant Article 93 of the Trademark Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 97-2(1) of the Trademark Act is that the defendant was sentenced to three times a fine for the same crime committed at the same place as the instant crime, and there is an unfavorable circumstance to the same crime.

However, the counterfeit goods sold by the defendant are the so-called "contestable goods" or "contestable goods" that anyone purchases with the knowledge that they are counterfeit goods, and the defendant sells the prices much less than others, so the unjust enrichment gained by the defendant is not significant, and the damage suffered by the legitimate owner of the trademark is minor.

It is so ordered in consideration of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant closed his business, there is no criminal record more than a suspended sentence, and most of the forged goods kept for sale have suffered substantial property damage by being confiscated, and the crime for livelihood and the fact that the defendant is seriously against the defendant.